Mess in 5 new soles Peru [solved]

The article
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4092.html

in edge and comments gives type A and type B for edge and Obv.
At the same time in mintage section it gives
2004 LIMA 0.6% Type A
2005 LIMA6 000 000 11% Type A

Note. Obviously the percentage is from wrongly described occurrence of lines and has nothing to do with frequency as it expected to be. This is not the case of this topic.

Right now it is not possible to attribute the type A correctly in 2004 and 2005. Does it about edge or about a side?

1. The best way to avoid such nonsense is to give to edge another name. For terms A, B are occupied for a side dies in numismatic practice, it is recommended to switch edge type A into type I and edge type B into type II.

2. It is worth to clarify the attribution of 2004 and 2005.

Yeah, it is worth to clarify, but since there is just one yearline for a year, this is not a mess. If you are able to contribute, feel free to do so here: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/contributions/modifier.php?id=4092

Please see this (excuse me alexandre I had not seen you thread!)
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic110502.html

Due to appearance of one more topic it is precisely correct to attribute the situation as mess obviously. This topic means that there are many peoples who need clarification.

Name of coin.
The coins is named by its three sides and technical data. It is standard. In numismatic practice the name consists of parts in such order:
- obverse
- reverse
- edge
- technical data (orientation, size, metal...)

In most cases of describing varieties it is correct to omit the last one or even two. In this case it is not correct to omit the edge. That is why it is recommended to write the Comments section in a way:

Obverse:
Die 1...
Die 2...

Reverse:
Die A...
Die B...

Edge:
I - plain.
II - reeded.


In year distribution to write:
1994 1+A+I
1995 1+A+I
2000 1+A+I
2001 2+A+I
2002 2+B+I
2004
2005
2006 2+B+I
2007 2+B+I
2008 2+B+I
2009 2+B+II


As for the recommendation

Quote: "Sjoelund"​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4092.html
​
​1. There are 2 types of edges (rims), reeded and not reeded (plain), but the two different types never occur in the same year, so no use to document them in the year lines, it's enough to have the documentation in the comments section.
​
​2. There are 3 types of designs 1A, 2A and 2B, but again only one design per year, so no need to define them in the year lines.
​

it is not correct to decide for collector what they should collect and hide everything as it is done already in some parts which does not belong to Numista catalog at all. Vice versa it is a must to inform collector coin of which name it is expected to be in their hands. In this case and in this case only the discovery of new combination types can be made.


One notice that there are no attribution for 2004 and 2005. It is expected that a collector, who has this coin in hands with the help of Comments section may attribute it correctly and add the data later.

2005 is assigned, re-read my postings.

Unfortunately 2005 - there is no one who may swear that they keep the coin in hands and attribute it in this way:
Obv.:
Rev.:
Edge:

It should be left as it is right now.

Can't you read? Ole has the coin and has checked the type.

Sorry to jump into the middle of this since it seems it should be completely resolved by now, but NGC has a picture of the 2005 coin and clearly shows it is obverse type 2, reverse type B just as Ole has already said.